Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message 4309712D.1040301@orkun.us you wrote:
Convenience is irrelevant. This flash is obviously designed with data protection as priority.
Convenience is not irrelevant. The existence of U-Boot itself is just for convenience,
I think "protect off" command is the convenience enough for this situation.
We don't care what the people who designed the flash had in mind. In U-Boot, the design is as follows:
- All flash is writable by default.
Why do you even attempt to provide software protection for some sectors of flash when the chip does not provide such protection then?
- Some parts of the flash may be either implictely or explicitely
protected.
- Implicit protection: this covers those areas of the flash that are
used to store data that are required for correct operation of U-Boot and the hardware, i. e.
- the U-Boot code and data
- environment variables
- any FPGA images etc. which are necessary for correct HW operation
Why do you override the policy of other applications for sectors that U-Boot has no actual use itself. Why do you unlock them all and present the opportunity of loss of critical data for other parts of the software solution? I would argue that there may be important and critical data stored in those sectors that are "required for correct operation of software" that runs on the CPU after U-Boot is done. Why do you think these parts deserve lesser protection?
Best regards, Tolunay